Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121202
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there i
with a substitute motion. >> commissioner moore? >> i am very glad to see this legislation. i think the transformative qualities of streetscape improvements have really completely transformed the district. the second tier buildings behind it, new housing, the improvement of the dmv parking area with new landscaping, all the thing to be improved are kind of gelling to make this street a concentrated new main street, kind of neighborhood main street. and i'm delighted that the legislation is sensitive to the small scale buildings, to the age of the buildings, to the type of mixed uses and to the kind of specific signature of neighborhood commercial district which is very different from any of the others. and as i think the beauty of san francisco here, i'm very pleased to see the small business commission actually rising to the board of supervisors and copying us to their very unanimous support of what's in front of us. so, i am delighted to just support it as it stands. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm also supportive of the legislation. but you have a question on the third recommendation,
. >> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to comment that the institutional master plan and where they stand would not give us any real tools to compare apples and apples. and i think this legislation as it is in front of us passed today, it might add another provision to add criteria which ultimately properly executed institutional master plans would have a chapter which becomes consistent for all institutional master plans. so, that indeed, we have a library of comparing the same set of data with each other. i think this is a great opportunity to start having an order reporting system. it does go hand in hand with other attempts on getting a better handle on housing, the housing dashboard, and on and on. i think these things layer ayev other consistently and not quite as strong and give all of us a much better ability to handle these complex and new issues. * >> commissioner hillis. >> i agree with the intent of the legislation, but i just think it would be good to talk to folks like the art institute and usf who sent us e-mails and said they haven't had a chance to review the legislation. so, i
sense. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate ms. rodgers saying whitewash. indeed, i believe we need an additional one or two hearings and my basic expectation would be that everybody who has spoken here today, the groups they represent or they spoke as individuals, that their concerns are addressed in some form or another because there seemed to be a general feeling of uncertainty of what's in front of us. and i have to really actually be very honest. it resonated quite well with me when mr. fairchild said, if you don't understand it, vote no on it. i think i want to be real simple here. i did not get the rewritten legislation till 4:00, what was the exact moment here? 4:19, yee, 4:19 this afternoon while we were already in the middle of discussion. so, i am in no motion to say how substantive some of the concerns have been addressed or not and why there is a matrix, no, yes, no, i always say the devil is in the details. and the detail is really more in the purview of people understanding in simple language of what ultimately is a legal document. and if that's unclear, which it is t
moore. >> i think it's an exceptional building. it shows that an architect really understands residential expectations for the new emerging district around the transit center. early on, it's quite a few years ago, we took on [speaker not understood] on residential expression. i think this building captures the nuances and the subtlies of what can be done. so, i'm really happy, whatever you want to comment on this. it is an incredibly wise choice by the developer to create a comprehensive open space design and hire the redevelopment landscape architect so it's not just an open space, but part of a network. i think it makes this project exceptional given the open spaces which are all residual little segmentments are fragmented together unless you have somebody who designed it with one stroke. we have that great opportunity and i thought the presentation was exceptional because it spoke about the different experiences, the different conditions under which these spaces all address different needs and all respond to settings of light, shadow, proximity, or even under the freeway. a
that commissioner moore's questions to a certain extent asking about how we treated things in eastern neighborhood and how that applies to western soma. and i recognize that every treatment -- i know we've been trying to -- we looked at market octavia and we looked at eastern neighborhoods. we're trying to create some degree of consistency across how the code treats some general principles and i just think that to the extent that that was done in eastern neighborhoods or in other plan areas, i think it's u.n. reasonable to see how we might do this in this plan area. if there is a strong compelling reason not to to understand what those compelling arguments are, and how it impacts people because, again, i think there's a reasonable expectation that what happened in the process of eastern neighborhoods would then carry over to the new process. and, so, i think that's what we need to kind of figure out and work on. and then the same thing you're talking about with grandfathering, i don't know how many other projects fit the same parameters of the 11th street. maybe they're the only one. but if you ca
. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a question. my understanding was that we actually included branch banks in the formula retail definition, and you said we did not. >> no, let me clarify that, commissioner. we do consider branch banks to be formula retail. however, within that definition it exempts the limited financial services that are less than 200 square feet. >> i appreciate you saying that. the other question i have for you, what this project does not do, and i am a little bit concerned about it, it does not have any disclosure about its physical vertical manifestation on the street. we're seeing a plan and the plan obviously gives us dimensional ideas. however, what this thing will look like on the outside is unclear to me. the reason why i'm asking that question is that several months ago we approved a project and when it was built the community came to us and said that they were very, very disturbed about what they thought we approved and what they got was completely different. that speak to the height of the sign, the location of the sign and a little bit concerned that the curr
there are other comments, i would move to not take dr and approve the project. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to get a slightly better understanding what the residential design team used as an argument to not support the project. i see a lot of references to light and air, which is basically not within the purview of what we normally decide on. we're being told over and over again that is not an argument. i do not really see that as the only one. is there something in the history of the project that -- the design -- >> the department's position -- and again, it was as the project sponsor said, the building itself is an elegant design. from the residential design team's position, the designer was great. the location is the issue. it was an infill on a development that had established a series and patterns of open spaces that had just been part of the integral development back in the '60s. that had been presented. an earlier development some years back had been presented and had been denied. the position of the department was that we felt that that was an integral part of that proj
as proposed. commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? okay. seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned] >> good morning and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the city operations and neighborhood services committee. i am sean elsbernd and i am joined by christina olague and we will be shortly joined by ms. carmen chu. mr. clerk, can you read item one. >> item one is issuance of on sale beer and wine license for mikhail brodsky for pectopah, llc located at 748 innes avenue. >> thank you mr. clerk. to the department. >> [inaudible] >> hold on one second. turn your mic on. >> thank you. >> testing. good morning supervisor supervisors. i am from the san francisco police department. they have filed an application with the city and on cite beer premseses
believe commissioner moore asked, and i would like to bring up again several others of park merced. if park merced had undergone this -- if this legislation had been in place when park merced was first a twinkle in the eye, everybody weighed in on it with approval because it was all two stories and it fit in the good earn apartments that are there now. however, at the end its was power buildings and now is undergoing litigation. * fit in with the garden apartments there is one instance, a very clear example what would change had this been in place or had it not been in place. i also find this ironic that this legislation is purported by its author to be open and extended in its notice when, as others have noted, its notice was buried at the end of november. it wasn't even noted that it was going to be c-e-q-a or had to do with any of the other kind of changes that are in it. so, we urge you again to strongly disapprove this proposal when you send your recommendation to the board of supervisors. thank you so much. >> let me call a couple more names. lynn gavin. matt reagan. joan wo
>> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. >> just a quick announcement. a little bit of unusual calendar today. we have a time certain item at 3 o'clock. we're going to take the next item and then after that hear the 3 o'clock. i think it's item number 17, thank you. so, the next one tehama, please. >> commissioners, before you are items 17 a and b, for case numbers 2008.0801e, x and v, 41 tehama street, request for determination of compliance and variance. >> good afternoon, president fong and member of the commission. my name is [speaker not understood]. if i could have the laptop screen on the overhead, please. the request before you today is for several actions regarding the project at 41 tehama street which would construct a 31 story building reaching a roof height of approximately 318 feet. the mechanical enclosure reaching a height of 342 feet. it cont
is closed. commissioner moore? >> following up on what the public was asking, but also asking for further clarification, i am very pleased to hear support for letting western soma move as a plan for approval on its own and that the central corridor planning will follow in its own time. and, again, we all know in the end it's about conflict and compromise, whatever that will be will kind of [speaker not understood] when that plan is fully matured and we will pay attention that it's duly and properly attended to and discussed. number two, i would ask mr. teague to briefly restate the specifics of the v alternative. to my recollection, the commission supported the office alternative. i have an image here. if you will briefly, just in one or two words, summarize, it would be helpful that we are all on the same page on that. >> we're going to pull this up for the 3v option, which is essentially, again, just to remind everybody, right now it's proposed that harrison street would be the dividing line for where the sally district ends and where the western soma mug begins. the sally permits new n
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12